Видео

In general terms "models" are time-sliced computer simulations. Video Games are the ones commonly seen. The only time-sliced computer simulation "model" that I ever wrote was a Web based company Promo thing that cost the company only a very thousand dollars of my time. Very simple, in Java. Persons are moving about in a large building and interacting with each other and building equipment. The formulae I used were simple compared to those in climate. There's mass, acceleration, velocity, distance, gravity in mine, and a few other things. My time slice was 0.1 seconds and I had to hold the simulation back with delays to keep it in real time else people would be racing around looking stupid. If the computer of the bod visiting the Web Site was too slow to manage real time there's nothing I can do about that, they would need to set fewer people going in the building. Climate computer simulation "models" are intensely complicated because of the vast numbers of factors involved, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, radiation, and a lot more. The climate computer simulation "models" don't need to run at a fixed rate compared to reality though, just run as fast as possible. They use a 15-minute time slice (I used 0.1 seconds) and 63,000 grid squares for Earth (90 x 90 KM) and maybe 80 vertical layers (varying tallnesses though) to give 5 million shoe box shapes for the ocean & air. So they update dozens, probably hundreds, of statistics for what's in the 5 million shoe box shapes compared to 15 minutes ago, and then again, and again, and again until they've done all 5 million shoe boxes 3,506,400 times and that's a 100-year time-sliced computer simulation "model" finished (it has done about 17 trillion (with a "T") complete sets of dozens, probably hundreds, of calculations with the appropriate formulae). Obviously, they have to store the key output statistics periodically so that the result can be seen as changes evolving over 100 years.

Another experienced glaciologist Eric Rignot said, answering a question, I paraphrase well "I don't know what a tipping point is but we are rather sure that the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) is now in a state of irreversible retreat".

gregory byrne Unit 2453 Trolled with Standard Half-Witted drivel.

"Sea levels have NOT risen by more than their traditional / recorded over previous 100 years" == Liar. From 1.8 mm/year to now 4.5 mm/year 8k-7k ago 9.4 metres (9.4 mm / year) End of glaciation giant ice sheet melting 7k-6k ago 1.25 metres (1.25 mm / year) From the plot been on Wiki 15 years 6k-5k ago 1.25 metres (1.25 mm / year) From the plot been on Wiki 15 years 5k-4k ago 0.5 metres (0.5 mm / year) From the plot been on Wiki 15 years 4k-2k ago 0.2 metres (0.1 mm / year) From the plot been on Wiki 15 years 1st century 0.015 metres (0.15 mm / year) 2nd century 0.017 metres (0.17 mm / year) 3rd century 0.002 metres DROP (0.02 mm / year lowering of sea level) 4th century 0.023 metres (0.23 mm / year) 5th century 0.034 metres DROP (0.34 mm / year lowering of sea level) 6th century 0.011 metres (0.11 mm / year) 7th century 0.027 metres (0.27 mm / year) 8th century 0.038 metres DROP (0.38 mm / year lowering of sea level) 9th century 0.002 metres DROP (0.02 mm / year lowering of sea level) 10th century 0.027 metres (0.27 mm / year) 11th century 0.057 metres DROP (0.57 mm / year lowering of sea level) 12th century 0.015 metres DROP (0.15 mm / year lowering of sea level) 13th century 0.004 metres DROP (0.04 mm / year lowering of sea level) 14th century 0.010 metres DROP (0.10 mm / year lowering of sea level) 15th century 0.034 metres (0.34 mm / year) 16th century 0.021 metres (0.21 mm / year) 17th century 0.032 metres (0.32 mm / year) 18th century 0.011 metres (0.11 mm / year) 19th century 0.004 metres DROP (0.04 mm / year lowering of sea level) 20th century 0.14 metres (1.4 mm / year SLR) The last 30 years 0.12 metres SLR (4.0 mm / year) The last 10 years 0.045 metres SLR (4.5 mm / year) ruclips.net/video/vhLOZ_bbgzQ/видео.html at 13:50 ruclips.net/video/ieGcx3IXSBY/видео.html at 14:25 and 40:15

The ocean melts half the ice of Greenland and 99.8% of the ice of Antarctica.

@@grindupBaker How can you make the ocean meet continental ice?

"Global temperature does not melt ice. Local temperature might". Huge ignorance because you didn't type "Local deep ocean temperature might". Therefore Lazy Babbler.

​ @hartunstart "How can you make the ocean meet continental ice?" is a very strange question because almost all of Antarctica's glaciers end at the ocean with floating ice shelves and the water at the point where the glacier starts floating (grounding line) is typically 500-800 m deep so it's far down from the surface. In the polar regions the water gets warmer as it gets deeper instead of getting colder as it gets deeper like everywhere else (because the polar surface is very cold in winter) so it might be -1.8 degrees water at the surface with sea ice and be 0,1, 2 or even 3 degrees down where the deep water is melting the underside of the floating ice shelf, or melting the glacier face at the grounding line if it has no shelf. Those temperatures melt a lot of ice because it melts at -2.3 degrees at a few hundred metres down. Greenland has more land-terminating glaciers like you said and the surface melt is more significant like Jason said but still Greenland has some marine terminating with the floating ice shelves and I'm sure I saw a talk about the Labrador Sea water going in at depths to 500 m and melting ice that's in the water. Also the Greenland fjords can be very deep. There's a famous video of a piece of ice the size of lower Manhatten breaking off and rolling over as it broke into pieces. Water has to be pretty deep to have a piece of ice the size of lower Manhatten rolling over in it. Strange irony about Antarctica is that a colder surface causes more ice loss because the Polar Jet Stream gets stronger (opposite of Arctic Amplification) and moves closer to Antarctica so it drives the cold surface water & ice northward faster if Antarctica is colder, like Jason showed. This of course "pulls in" the deeper warmer water at 200 m - 800 m depths faster and melts more ice. Thus colder Antarctica surface due to "Antarctic De-Amplification" melts more ice. Strange, interesting processes.

@@grindupBaker When the ice has left the continent, it is no more continental. Rather expartiate. Anyway, this way the melting can not proceed to the continent.

Needs some calculation because an AMOC slowdown only cools the "winters" 6 months from October and not the "summers" 6 months from April. Obviously. And the warm air & ocean that causes of the ice loss is only during the "summers" 6 months from April. Obviously. Right?

Exactly my question also.

@@grindupBakerI think the AMOC heats the North Atlantic all year. If it collapses the climate equator moves south making the north even colder… bad for Scandinavia. Here are some references I (unfortunately) only half understand. Search for: Extreme cold events in Europe under a reduced AMOC Virna L Meccia1,∗, Claudia Simolo1, Katinka Bellomo2,3 and Susanna Corti1 Open Letter by Climate Scientists to the Nordic Council of Ministers Reykjavik, October 2024 Also this: ruclips.net/video/ZHNNW8c_FaA/видео.htmlsi=f2FCQ9bJ8WYfS_7i

@@sunegroennebaek5283 "I think the AMOC heats the North Atlantic all year". Must be more in winter because sea ice forms just a tad more in winter than summer. Right? Am I Right about that? It would certainly be less time consuming for me if you had provided time stamp(s) in the video where the monthly or seasonally amount of cooling was shown, which you obviously saw in the video else you wouldn't have referenced it. Right?

The paleo-climate had the time, thousands of years, to equilibrate. ie. the on-ground effects had plenty of time to catch-up to the limited CO2 forcing. Presently, as shown by the slide 4:25 that had the present/last inter-glacial/previous inter-glacial CO2 vs sea-level-rise, we have raised CO2 at break-neck speed and the warming/ice-loss/SLR are pressured to keep up. Therefore we eventually will reach our commitment (via forcing by CO2) of 4-8 degrees C and 6m-40m SLR. That much heat causes catastrophes untold. That much SLR causes human migration not by the millions, by the billions. Unless we bring the forcing (CO2) down. Subtext: This crisis is critical to the survival of at least half of all life on the planet, humans included. ps. This is not like the Viking or Medieval warming's. This would cause global agricultural collapse and wide-spread desertification, plus the flooding of every coastal region and river delta.

@ Hate to break it to you sweetie but the Greenland ice cores show it was much warmer in the past….but it was also much colder. Here is the part that crushes your argument….the rise in temp always preceded the rise in C02. C02 cannot be a greenhouse gas, it sits at the surface and cannot trap heat.

Without greenhouse effect, Earth temp would be 0 (zero) F or -18'C, from about +57F or +14C today. That's all due mainly to CO2 in the atmosphere. The other dominant greenhouse gas water vapor, changes with the weather and is not determining. CO2 concentration is. We've raised CO2 conctrnation with two thirds since onset of industrialization, to the level of the Pliocene, the last warmer era before the eon of Ice Ages, over 2,5 million years ago. Temps were 2 to 3 C higher, sea levels stood 20-40 meters (76 to 135 feet) up compared to today. We can expect climate to veer back to those temps in a very short period, decades, about the same time frame that it took to cool down to the little ice age. But difference in temp will be way bigger, making it extremely tough for our modern, worldwide, last minute delivery based economy. We no longer have horse powered agriculture or paper & coins based trade like back then, we are totally dependent on our modern technologies running uninterrupted - such vast changes in climate will make all that highly doubtful. You wouldn't have your own farm garden and orchard in the backyard, do you ?

@ I’m laughing out loud at your post. It was warmer in the past before humans, everything you said is propaganda.

@@RunQC You talking to me bro ? You try and take your Hummer to temps that T Rex had. Well not that much, but plus 2 is expected in 20-30 years. As agriculture is _very_ dependent on climate being stabile, count on your burgers and beer to triple in price around that. What you call propaganda is simply science. Earth would some 60F colder without carbon in the atmosphere, we've added two thirds of what was already there, and it's going to change your weather, whether your believe it or not. If you under 40, better move to some place where they know how to grow their own food, as Walmart will not be stocked at some point in A not too far future. Can also hang around and find that there indeed has been a lot of lies and propaganda - but not from the science side.

Yes it's all extra load. There's 900 GtC above ground in the land vegetation (~3,600 GtC in the soil) and humans have burned 700 GtC that was sequestered 300 million years ago. The thing is though that the existing 900 GtC above ground in the land vegetation isn't likely to be further reduced much but there's plenty left from 300 million years ago for humans to keep burning so it's the major factor by far.

@@grindupBaker these days I am also wearing a little bit about the I want to say .3 / .4 Gt of plastics in the environment, where we’re beginning to realize that life has biochemistry to consume it. All that garbage floating everywhere represents a unique food source to be metabolized into CO2 and water. A little ironic because we use plastic be because it’s durable. That would change if it decayed like paper or wood or even a piece of fruit. It makes at least for a good scary story.

Yeah, right!😂🤪

Humans and uncounted other animals are all better off clean air and +.10C

You are, of course, totally un-quantified, as per the normal for your type, the lazy Babble Brain. I do understand because I'm increasingly lazy the last 5 years, though I'll never match your laziness. Work, study, is completely different and not nearly as easy, not as facile. I bet you dollars for doughnuts that Jason Box here can confirm from personal experience that work, quantifying important things properly, is often more like Work than Fun, and not nearly as Easy as your Facile Babbling.

cleaner air is good..but it could be argued less soot, ash , smoke from coal burning means the Suns rays cut through with more intensity. The main heat trap now is moisture

​ @vincentl.9469 "t could be argued less soot ... Suns rays cut through with more intensity". Well Yes duh. It's much more than "argued", it's the subject of many scientific papers the last few decades and the bottom line is that IPCC AR6 has it assessed by the combination oif all scientific work done as -1.0 w/m**2 of global chiller. For example, right now the global heater is 1.2 w/m**2 and is warming by +0,.25 degrees / decade so if ALL pollution stopped right now and stayed stopped the warming would leap to +0.25 * 2.2/1.2 = +0.46 degrees / decade. Simple as that except that the +0.46 degrees / decade would rapidly ramp down after about a decade because there'd be no new heater then, just the ocean slowly doling out bits of the old heater. Pretty simple stuff.

Glaciers are glacial. They move to equilibrium not over your Me-Now Babble Brain time scales. It'll be a matter of assessing the equilibrium situation in a few centuries. Whether it will equilibriate at most of the present mass or continue to decline to a small portion of its present even WITH NO FURTHER WARMING.

I can see two possible answers to your question, and have no expertise in this area myself and don't have access to the paper. Firstly, as I understand it full Greenland collapse is estimated from paleo evidence from the Eemian, and I recall a range quoted 0.8 to 3.0 °C. You would get some mass loss below wherever that point is, but it only becomes self-sustaining at something like 2 °C. Secondly, I'll have to rewatch, but I thought the y-axis might be local temperatures rather than global mean surface temperatures.

​ @SofGdggd-xt9lw "full Greenland collapse is estimated from paleo evidence from the Eemian". No it's actually 50% of the present Greenland ice remaining at the ice minimum of the Eemian Optimum (126k to 122k years ago just roughly). That's how scientists know that "Antarctica was also involved" because the SLR was 4-6 m higher than now (or maybe I also read 6-9 m higher than now, I forget) and the Eemian Optimum Greenland ice loss was "only" 3.5 m of SLR. Of course, the remaining 50% was all northern and central down that huge north-south valley with its bed 500 m below sea level (Greenland without ice is 2 land strips like a tuning fork closed at the top and at the bottom as well so there would be a vast freshwater lake in the middle until isostatic rebound spills the lake into the sea, but there might be a very small opening to the sea at the top northeast). It's ruclips.net/video/KTTlAAiwgwM/видео.html at 17:38 and might also be somewhere in ruclips.net/video/RI_g5xnQkGA/видео.html

Define 'more efficient' ?

@@DrSmooth2000 , more efficient meaning an increasing percentage of EEI applying to the melting of ice.

@@wendydelisse9778 so EEI finds the ocean closer to Equilibrium and thus less 'receptive' or useful and thus goes into the ice?

The vast majority of the Sun's rays strikes in equatorial and near equatorial regions, between 30 degrees north and south latitude, and yes, as the upper 800 meters of ocean in and near the tropics gets closer to equilibrium, vertical transport of heat downward becomes a less effective means of transporting newly added heat. However, horizontal tranport of heat northward or southward improves for a couple of main reasons. 1. Sea water experiences more density decrease per degree Celsius at higher temperature, disproportionally adding to the amount of buoyancy in the top 800 meters of tropical and near tropical ocean, which in turn increases the tendency to move poleward to overtop nearby cooler water at the surface. 2. Saturated air carries more additional latent heat per degree Celsius at higher temperature, adding disportionally to the amount of latent heat transported poleward when tropical or near tropical air moves poleward. Thus, whether the heat tranport is from sensible heat being transported poleward by ocean water or from latent heat being transported poleward by saturated air, poleward heat transport is improved at higher temperature, making the climate change process of tropicalization faster. The regions near the poles are where the sea level ice and near sea level ice are found. As the process of tropicalization progresses faster than would be expected from an approximation of a constant change in the amount of sea water buoyancy and saturated air latent heat per degree Celsius, the rate of ice melt also increases faster than would be expected from that same approximation.

​ @wendydelisse9778 Your calculations are massively erroneous because you failed to include the latent heat of the 3,150 trillion (with a "T") tonnes of ice that will be floating on the tropical ocean for the next 45 years as carefully assessed by your Hero "Paul Beckwith" as the cornerstone of his Business Model, that you aggressively supported July 2019. You are not permitted to flippety-floppety as this is as physical science and not the Gong Show on the Telly so re-do all calculations to include the 3,150 trillion (with a "T") tonnes of ice that will be floating on the tropical ocean for the next 45 years and present that revised assessment. Take yet another 6 years if required and I'll return to this important video May 2030 to review your revised calculations with your Hero "Paul Beckwith"'s 3,150 trillion (with a "T") tonnes of ice that will be on the tropical ocean for the next 45 years. Good luck! (Advanced technical note: I carefully calculated that 20.0000000000% of the ice is presently below sea level as I want to match the 12-digit accuracy of the assessments of the "Paul Beckwith" sea level rise (SLR) Business Model).

yeah great. all that lava.

Jungle Planet 🦚

Save the planet by burning fossil fuels. Save humans by shut the fossil fuel industry. Humans need cooperation to survive, 👋 its been fun

I'm pretty sure a fair share of current South to North migration in both Latin America and Africa, are caused because of land degradation intensified by climate change plus population surplus. Pop Surplus is relative of course, as harvests become unsure, less mouths can be fed and folks go on the move, first to the cities then on to the North. I've read several stories witnessing of grandfather's fields drying out and losing topsoil. It'll become increasingly dramatic as changes escalate. We'll be hearing more of this!

"insane proton flux fuelled solar winds and storms are going to contribute to the glare melting" == drivel

"northern polar center" what is that? You mean the geographic north pole? "As the polar region moves over water the planet will warm." what would be the mechanism? "We see a spike in CO2 at the end of every interstadial." Where does it come from? " CO2 makes a better coolant than insulation." under what conditions? Afterall, Venus is quite hot. "entirely melted at least once within the last million years and was covered with vegetation" That was understood for several decades now (Gris). You probably refer to publication in 2021 (DOI:10.1073/pnas.2021442118). "Which shows the reason the planet has gotten so cold is the polar centers being over land. " Explain, how do the ice cores show that? "the mesosphere and lower thermosphere cooled by 3.1 degrees F (1.7 degrees C )" Yes, as predicted by the climate models. Which btw is evidence against the usual claim of "it is the sun". "Less fossil fuels actually means a hotter planet." And you think that because you see the cooling effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere? I am sorry, but I got the impression you do not quite understand what you were writing about.

A better geological time frame to look at, from an point of view of partial dry air pressure of CO2 at sea level is toward the end of the Langhian Age, around the year 14,000,000 BCE. Partial pressures are most often expressed in units called "pascals", representing 1 newton per square meter of pressure. Even 1 pascal can make a difference with CO2. Around the year 1500 CE some 500 years ago, the partial pressure for CO2 was about 28 1/2 pascals. Greenland was mostly frozen over in year round ice then. During a time known as the Eemian, around the year 130,000 BCE, the value for CO2 was about 29 1/2 pascals, about 1 pascal higher. Combined with ideal astronomical conditions, that extra pascal allowed Greenland's year round ice cover to temporarily almost melt completely away. Now in the year 2024, the value is about 43 pascals. Ideal astronomical conditions are no longer needed to melt Greenland. Interestingly, 43 pascals was the approximate value near the end of the Langhian Age around the year 14,000,000 BCE. During the Langhian Age, both West Antarctica and Greenland had near zero year round ice cover. Keeping in mind that 1 extra pascal of CO2 can make a real difference, now in the 2020s CO2 has been increasing by a little over 1/4 pascal per year. Around January 2028, one can expect CO2 to rise to the 44 pascal mark. Year round ice on Greenland and West Antarctica can no longer, starting then, survive for a geologically lengthy time frame. Geologists often say, "The past is the key to the future." A new hotter climate equilibrium, once forced, will take time to re-establish, 600 years or so. People therefore should look to the Langhian Age to get a reasonable idea what Earth's climate will be in the 27th Century.

As recommended reading, see figure 3 in "Global Mean and Relative Sea-Level Changes over the 66 Myr: Implications for Earth Eocene Ice Sheets", in the scientific journal of the "Earth Science Systems Society", volume 3 - 2023. Peak sea level during the Langhian Age was about 50 meters above modern sea level, and can be thought of as an approximate worst case scenario for Langhian concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Of course, if mankind goes beyond Langhian Age amounts of CO2, worst case sea level rise becomes even higher.

Journal article title correction: The part of the title above that reads "Over the 66 Myr" should instead be "Over the Past 66 Myr". Also, there was an omission of a formal date of publication, which was 17 January 2024.

Does the axle of rotation squeak?

Considering these volunteers are far better than our fascist state and corporations at informing community, good to encourage more than give constructive criticism IMO. Love both their work and yes, the now deep sea heating has reached alarming rates, it should be included.

@@nottenvironmental6208 Trump said the other day that he will fix climate sciencetists who complain about this on Day One by Executive Order.

@rd264 how did America become such a horrible place for good people? Trump will attack any American against his goal of removing everyone's freedom but his own. Someone who will burn America to the ground just to rule over the ashes

"in January 2020, there was 200 ZJ of heat. In 6 months, it increased to 226 ZJ" No there's never been 26 ZJ gained In 6 months in recent decades anyway. It would be a humongous La Nina to do that. Didn't happen. I'm pretty sure that Jim Massa didn't do the work about Deep Ocean Heat, pleasant bloke though he is. He doesn't publish much of that sort of thing.

The real problem is: our climate models worst case scenarios are exceeded. Like temperature rise is above worst case scenario. Or same has been the case for emissions. So real data shows that models underestimate the reality. IPCC process is part of this problem, but also many scientists just does not want to see that reality is as bad as it is. Even when their own dara shows worse results itis often downplayed in piblications and for the public. Also hardly anyone wants to hear how bad the situation really is.

This can take several thousand years to work out though. the British isles are still adjusting after the last deglaciation following the Last Glacial Maximum. Central Scotland is rising by about 2mm/year where I am in Cornwall is going down by 1mm/year, because it was beyond the ice-sheets and never glaciated.

@@mawkernewek Isostatic Rebound Timing H results, here’s a summary of the timing and rates of isostatic rebound: Initial rapid rebound: Immediately after the ice sheets melt, the land begins to rebound quickly, with rates of up to several centimeters per year. This rapid rebound is due to the elastic response of the Earth’s crust to the removal of the heavy ice load. Slowing down: As time passes, the rebound rate slows down exponentially. This is because the asthenosphere, the Earth’s mantle beneath the crust, begins to flow more slowly, resisting the upward motion of the crust. Long-term rates: Over thousands of years, the rebound rate becomes much slower, typically measured in millimeters per year. For example: In the Hudson Bay region, it’s estimated that the land will take around 10,000 years to fully recover from the weight of the last ice age. In Fennoscandia (northern Europe), the rebound rate is around 1-2 cm/year, but slows down to around 0.5 mm/year over longer timescales. Regional variations: Isostatic rebound rates can vary significantly depending on the location and thickness of the former ice sheets. For example, areas with thicker ice sheets, like Hudson Bay, experience more rapid rebound, while areas with thinner ice sheets, like northern Europe, experience slower rebound. Holocene record: The study of Holocene strandlines (former shorelines) provides a continuous record of emergence over the past 8,000 years. At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded in this timeframe.

Minute amount comparatively.

There is a portion of the northeastern Baltic Sea region that still rises by about a meter per century from the loss of ice cover thousands of years ago. If ice sheet loss has occurred especially recently, there is suspicion based on the ancient behavior of Lake Ontario to the south of of the Canadian province of Ontario that post glacial rebound can initially happen at a rate of about 10 meters per century, but eventually greatly slows down as geological equibrium gets close to being achieved. At some time during the next several centuries, mankind seems poised to verify and record in real time the post glacial rebound rates of Greenland and West Antarctica in response after the current ice sheet cover eventually melts away from those two regions.